Life: Opinions are cheap. Now what?

Opinions are cheap. 

Opinions can be easily generated in your brain without any cost or real efforts. You can even just borrow it and recite it. Opinions may or may not be backed up by facts, and certainly skewed by your interpretation. 


[I leave this note here to remind myself of the inherent cheapness of opinions, right before midterm election of 2018.]



If you want to add value to your opinion, there are a few ways.

(0) Have a name.

   Anonymous or unrecognizable handle names don't count.

(1) Make it different from most others/value through rarity

   by radicalizing it (take an extreme position). This is the path extremists take and I do not recommend it. 

   by making it otherwise unique (smart, clever, new, etc)


(2) Give credibility

   by your actions (live your opinion). No hypocrite.

   by becoming an expert (be an industry expert and have tangible results)

   by external credentials (same as expert opinion)


(3) Make it useful or specifically applicable/value through timeliness and practicality

   "Useful" is in the eye of beholder. Generic opinions don't work. Some opinions can work for specific person or situation, but they may not for others. For many pragmatic issues, having "useful" opinions at the right time and for the right person can add value. This is for a counselor, a coach, a doctor, an instructor, etc. 


I do not recommend (4) and (5).

(4) Talk only to affirmative friends (the echo chamber method)

   You can have a false sense of valued opinion by living in a small echo chamber.


(5) Use halo effect on someone who recognize your halo effect (the celebrity-and-fans, or the cult leader-member method)

   Similar to (4). It works only in your small world.

....


Since my basic view on other people's opinions is like above, I do not value all opinions, but opinions by select few whom I trust. 

Yes, trust and source are important.

I am still using my judgement on the person as a source, and delegating a part of my judgement to him. 


Some people proposed to take even more strict approach than mine.

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”

— Buddha

If you agree with this Buddha's "opinion" with your reason and common sense, believe it and practice it.




PS
This week I was working on a research manuscript that contains works by my summer student and graduate research assistant. Hoping to send it out soon.


Last Saturday (10/20/18), we had a memorial gathering for Paul Ramirez at the OKC swing dance club, where he spent so much time. Visiting there one last time in his urn was probably a good thing for him.

Science/life: OU daily article (published 10/3/2018)

Some time ago in late September, a reporter from OU daily, a campus newspaper, contacted me, saying that she read our press release article from Stephenson Cancer Center on our research and interested in writing a story.

So we had an interview over the phone. I also told her the names of my previous graduate research assistant and summer student, so that she could talk with them. Apparently, having independent people talk about research was journalistically (?) important for her. 

Two days later a photographer showed up and took some photos.


Then I forgot about it. There was no follow up or anything.


Today I remembered it, and searched for the article.


It was actually written and published. So here it is.

Link to the article OU daily article 10/3/2018  by Francesca.

[the photo in the article....me]

Dance: This weekend in OKC, Tulsa (Tango, WCS)

In this weekend 10/12-14,

Tango workshop Jose Luis Ferraro and Rika Fukuda (OKC, idance)

Tango weekend with Jose and Rika Facebook event link

Tulsa Fall Fling /West Coast Swing workshop with Taletha Jouzdani (Tulsa, Clubhouse)

                                       Tulsa Fall Fling Facebook event link


For your consideration.

Science: DOD PRARP grant preparation

We have been working on a proposal for a grant from DOD (Department of Defense). Past Saturday and Sunday it was hectic. But we uploaded files yesterday (Monday). 

Administrative office was checking them, and today (Tuesday) we were fixing things. Now I am finally getting optimistic about making the deadline on 10/11 (Thu).



There are a few major federal funding sources for scientific research. For biomedical research, the most major one is NIH. But DOD also has a number of medical research programs concerning issues pertinent to the military and veterans.


NIH programs are reviewed by experts panel members. The programs and announcements change focus over time, but slowly.

Apparently, DOD programs are more driven by needs. They can be created quickly. For example, some programs on psychiatric issues did not exist until PTSD was recognized and became an issue. On the other hand, some programs were discontinued or took hiatus.

DOD research grants follow different mechanism from that of NIH. I think it is good.


One of such DOD programs is PRARP (Peer-reviewed Alzheimer's Research Program). 

The mission statement says,

"Mission: The PRARP’s mission is devoted to (1) understanding the association between Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related dementia (AD/ADRD), and (2) reducing the burden on affected individuals and caregivers, especially in the military and Veteran communities."

This is the grant we have been working on the proposal for. We think we have a proposal that will contribute to the DOD PRARP's mission. For that, we teamed up with TBI experts in Neuroscience department. Reading and learning their work was interesting. 

Some aspects of their research were fascinating, although I do not fancy doing it myself (brain surgery and behavior analysis, anyone?). I'll leave these parts to them. Delegation is a great merit of teaming up, as long as the partner is reliable and does good work.

The story is the same from their standpoint. Teaming-up wouldn't work unless both parties bring something equal to the table.

Probably tomorrow we can finish finalizing the application with administrators and submit it.

Almost there.

Science: Cancer immunotherapy for 2018 Nobel Prize

Elderberry syrup. Zinc. Vitamin C. My low-tech combo for mild cold. Now the cold I had over this past weekend is gone.

It is good to have some medicine for a disease.


This year's Nobel Prize went to cancer immunotherapy. Specifically, to people who found receptor proteins that regulate immune cells and that cancer cells use to evade immune attack.

One of the proteins is called PD-1, found by Dr. Honjo in Kyoto University, and another, CTLA4, investigated by Dr. Allison in Texas MD Anderson. Their studies led to a novel class of cancer drugs. The obvious usefulness appealed to the Prize committee, it seems.

Cancer is born out of our own body. But as they grow, they start to express various proteins that are not in surrounding, former kin cells. That means, in theory, cancers should be found by immune cells and eliminated.

But it does not happen, for many growing cancers. Cancers somehow evade immune attacks. That "somehow" part is regulated by surface receptor proteins, including PD-1 and CTLA4.

If we target PD1 or CTLA4, it may disrupt the way cancers evade immune cells, and help immune cells eliminate cancers again.

The theory sounds good. But there are too many good-sounding theories in science that don't work.

Most striking thing was, they worked.

For example, PD1 inhibitory antibody, called Nivolumab/Opdivo, was used against a type of late-stage cancer, for which 5-year survival rate was near zero. But the drug brought the figure to 16%. Literally, life or death difference.

Encouraged by the success, and with optimism that the drug may not be choosy about the types of cancer, many clinical trials are ongoing.

That way, we have seen many "cancer immunotherapy" reports in cancer research meetings in past several years.


In fact, a few years back in our lab, we bought anti-PD1 and CTLA4 antibodies as a research tool and did some pilot experiments to see if they are expressed in cells with genomic instability, and if they are promising target in cancer immunoprevention. (I guess I should not talk about this). Anyhow, immune-modulation is now an important therapeutic or preventive option to consider.


So I am not surprised to see them won the Prize. Congratulations, Drs. Honjo and Allison. 



PS 
"Cancer Immunotherapy" here is a highly specific therapeutic modality targeting "immune checkpoint". It is different from previous generation immunotherapy (like using interferon or interleukins) or from generic "immune boost" (mushrooms or garlic, anyone? Could be elderberry syrup, too).